http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=24824
Baldur's Gate 3 and Neverwinter Nights 2?
A-wh-wh-wh-what!?
A-wh-wh-wh-what!?
"Some people say that I must be a terrible person, but it’s not true. I have the heart of a young boy in a jar on my desk."
-Stephen King
-Stephen King
-
werebeargoddess
- Posts: 1096
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 9:05 am
- Location: Stargazing in a field
- Contact:
I'm a bit suprised about their claiming that they're doing BG3. I heard last year that someone, I think Black Isle wanted to do BG3 before they shut down, but they couldn't get the lisence for it or something. I guess someone managed to get lisence But I didn't hear about the Neverwinter Nights 2 bit until this week.
I wanted to change my sig, but I can't think of anything to change it to 
Saw this ealier. There was a news item about it, but now I can't see it......
Wonder what this is all about?
I'd think we would hear them announce such huge games other then an advetisment for a new issue of a game magazine.
Could be interesting though - if they announce BG3 and NwN2 now after Fallout 3 also have been announced. Could be a good future for CRPGs.
*checks his calendar* Nope, not april first.
Edit: Here the news bit was.
Wonder what this is all about?
I'd think we would hear them announce such huge games other then an advetisment for a new issue of a game magazine.
Could be interesting though - if they announce BG3 and NwN2 now after Fallout 3 also have been announced. Could be a good future for CRPGs.
*checks his calendar* Nope, not april first.
Edit: Here the news bit was.
Insert signature here.
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
If BG3 does come out, I just hope they don't change the gameplay much, and keep it in a similar style.
If it comes out and sucks, it will ruin the image of the Baldur's Gate series. Kind of what Quest for Glory V did for the rest of the series.
If it comes out and sucks, it will ruin the image of the Baldur's Gate series. Kind of what Quest for Glory V did for the rest of the series.
Check it out! One of my earliest, and certainly, more creative threads!
Fantasy Football - Pick a Side
Fantasy Football - Pick a Side
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
-
Galuf the Dwarf
- Posts: 3160
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: Connecticut, a place of open land, hills, forests,
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Rob-hin]I STILL don't believe it.[/QUOTE]
Same here.
BTW, any guesses as to what ruleset would it use? The developer might use 2nd Edition, or 3rd, or even 3.5. Hopefully, 4th Edition shouldn't come out for a few more years.
Same here.
BTW, any guesses as to what ruleset would it use? The developer might use 2nd Edition, or 3rd, or even 3.5. Hopefully, 4th Edition shouldn't come out for a few more years.
Dungeon Crawl Inc.: It's the most fun you can have without 3 midgets and a whip! Character stats made by your's truly!
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=werebeargoddess]I'm a bit suprised about their claiming that they're doing BG3. I heard last year that someone, I think Black Isle wanted to do BG3 before they shut down, but they couldn't get the lisence for it or something. I guess someone managed to get lisence But I didn't hear about the Neverwinter Nights 2 bit until this week.[/QUOTE]
Interplay via its subsidiary BIS was claiming as recently as 6 months ago that it had every intention of creating a BG3. Of course, that wasn't the same Interplay it had been 2 years ago, and the company may have simply been marking its territory.
This whole announcement seems very fishy. If it were genuine, there would be a lot more attention being paid to it, and a lot more detail about it. The fact that no one in the gaming industry is spending a small fortune on PR fireworks says something.
Interplay via its subsidiary BIS was claiming as recently as 6 months ago that it had every intention of creating a BG3. Of course, that wasn't the same Interplay it had been 2 years ago, and the company may have simply been marking its territory.
This whole announcement seems very fishy. If it were genuine, there would be a lot more attention being paid to it, and a lot more detail about it. The fact that no one in the gaming industry is spending a small fortune on PR fireworks says something.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I agree it does sound weird. Seeing that Interplay had the rights to the BG part of the D&D world while BI was developing BG3, and saying for now that the announcement is true, then the timescale would hardly allow for Bioware to actually have completed zip on their own by now. Seeing that BI had BG3 almost completed, at least 75% I'd say ( at least people working on the project said so), it would have been a waste if Bioware hadn't taken the project onward from there instead of creating a new BG3. What I'm trying to say is that my projection of the BG3 we're going to get is pretty close to what BI had already announced for their BG3, so it's going to be veeery similar in style to BG2.
Naturally, all I know is that suddenly Bioware has the rights to that part of the D&D universe, we don't know whether the scrapped BG3 project was also part of that deal. We all know Bioware was pissed off at losing the rights of finishing off their saga , but is that enough to start the whole game from scratch when the very capable people at BI almost had it finished?
I'm really desperate to know which path they chose.
Naturally, all I know is that suddenly Bioware has the rights to that part of the D&D universe, we don't know whether the scrapped BG3 project was also part of that deal. We all know Bioware was pissed off at losing the rights of finishing off their saga , but is that enough to start the whole game from scratch when the very capable people at BI almost had it finished?
I'm really desperate to know which path they chose.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I wouldn't put an ounce of worry into it. Until there's the usual PR hoopla, there's no game. And until the game shows in great detail, there's no reason to invest enthusiasm. This market is ruled by big corporations, these days; you can always expect 'em to abide by these rules. Sad, isn't it?
Sad, isn't it?To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
Galuf the Dwarf
- Posts: 3160
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: Connecticut, a place of open land, hills, forests,
- Contact:
[QUOTE=fable]I wouldn't put an ounce of worry into it. Until there's the usual PR hoopla, there's no game. And until the game shows in great detail, there's no reason to invest enthusiasm. This market is ruled by big corporations, these days; you can always expect 'em to abide by these rules. Sad, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Well, let's face it, fable. Being a big company or a small one are situations that have advantages and disadvantages.
Sad, isn't it?[/QUOTE]Well, let's face it, fable. Being a big company or a small one are situations that have advantages and disadvantages.
Dungeon Crawl Inc.: It's the most fun you can have without 3 midgets and a whip! Character stats made by your's truly!
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
For gamers, I think the involvement of huge corporations have been, in generral, a negative. The people that now decide what games get made are those who have never made games or enjoyed playing 'em, and this isn't good for you or me. I could give you several dozen stories in recent years about the arrogant stupidity of corporate producers whose decisions affect products; I'll just offer one, for now.
A company that has made some excellent strategy games with superb AI and no codescension at all to players came up with an idea for a hybrid RPG/strategy title based on the Greek gods. They spent their own resources working up an alpha of the title, and took it to one big company, where the executive producer immediately asked them, "Will you do it instead for Nintendo? Only Nintendo sells, these days," and refused to budge.
They next to went to another game company notable for its RPGs. Everybody liked the game, and it was a done deal--until they hit the head of accounting. This person insisted that "no game based on Greek myths has ever made a cent," and refused to budge. When the chief in-house producer (an old hand at developing RPGs; too bad I can't give his name, you'd all know it) literally offered to handle the product personally himself, in his offtime, without pay, because he loved the title, the accountancy head still wouldn't budge.
The game was never produced.
There's a good side to big money. It funds big games. Whether it's blown on fluff or spent on features, the cash is required. But the bad side is that the people with the money call the shots all the time about what games get made. And if you look back at the titles that came out in the 1980s and the early 1990s then contrast them with today's, it's only to see how the field of gaming possibilities has drastically narrowed, and many interesting avenues of exploration were abandoned.
A company that has made some excellent strategy games with superb AI and no codescension at all to players came up with an idea for a hybrid RPG/strategy title based on the Greek gods. They spent their own resources working up an alpha of the title, and took it to one big company, where the executive producer immediately asked them, "Will you do it instead for Nintendo? Only Nintendo sells, these days," and refused to budge.
They next to went to another game company notable for its RPGs. Everybody liked the game, and it was a done deal--until they hit the head of accounting. This person insisted that "no game based on Greek myths has ever made a cent," and refused to budge. When the chief in-house producer (an old hand at developing RPGs; too bad I can't give his name, you'd all know it) literally offered to handle the product personally himself, in his offtime, without pay, because he loved the title, the accountancy head still wouldn't budge.
The game was never produced.
There's a good side to big money. It funds big games. Whether it's blown on fluff or spent on features, the cash is required. But the bad side is that the people with the money call the shots all the time about what games get made. And if you look back at the titles that came out in the 1980s and the early 1990s then contrast them with today's, it's only to see how the field of gaming possibilities has drastically narrowed, and many interesting avenues of exploration were abandoned.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
Galuf the Dwarf
- Posts: 3160
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: Connecticut, a place of open land, hills, forests,
- Contact:
[QUOTE=fable]For gamers, I think the involvement of huge corporations have been, in generral, a negative. The people that now decide what games get made are those who have never made games or enjoyed playing 'em, and this isn't good for you or me. I could give you several dozen stories in recent years about the arrogant stupidity of corporate producers whose decisions affect products; I'll just offer one, for now.
A company that has made some excellent strategy games with superb AI and no codescension at all to players came up with an idea for a hybrid RPG/strategy title based on the Greek gods. They spent their own resources working up an alpha of the title, and took it to one big company, where the executive producer immediately asked them, "Will you do it instead for Nintendo? Only Nintendo sells, these days," and refused to budge.
They next to went to another game company notable for its RPGs. Everybody liked the game, and it was a done deal--until they hit the head of accounting. This person insisted that "no game based on Greek myths has ever made a cent," and refused to budge. When the chief in-house producer (an old hand at developing RPGs; too bad I can't give his name, you'd all know it) literally offered to handle the product personally himself, in his offtime, without pay, because he loved the title, the accountancy head still wouldn't budge.
The game was never produced.
There's a good side to big money. It funds big games. Whether it's blown on fluff or spent on features, the cash is required. But the bad side is that the people with the money call the shots all the time about what games get made. And if you look back at the titles that came out in the 1980s and the early 1990s then contrast them with today's, it's only to see how the field of gaming possibilities has drastically narrowed, and many interesting avenues of exploration were abandoned.[/QUOTE]
Okay, point taken.
Still, what's the good and bad sides of small companies?
A company that has made some excellent strategy games with superb AI and no codescension at all to players came up with an idea for a hybrid RPG/strategy title based on the Greek gods. They spent their own resources working up an alpha of the title, and took it to one big company, where the executive producer immediately asked them, "Will you do it instead for Nintendo? Only Nintendo sells, these days," and refused to budge.
They next to went to another game company notable for its RPGs. Everybody liked the game, and it was a done deal--until they hit the head of accounting. This person insisted that "no game based on Greek myths has ever made a cent," and refused to budge. When the chief in-house producer (an old hand at developing RPGs; too bad I can't give his name, you'd all know it) literally offered to handle the product personally himself, in his offtime, without pay, because he loved the title, the accountancy head still wouldn't budge.
The game was never produced.
There's a good side to big money. It funds big games. Whether it's blown on fluff or spent on features, the cash is required. But the bad side is that the people with the money call the shots all the time about what games get made. And if you look back at the titles that came out in the 1980s and the early 1990s then contrast them with today's, it's only to see how the field of gaming possibilities has drastically narrowed, and many interesting avenues of exploration were abandoned.[/QUOTE]
Okay, point taken.
Still, what's the good and bad sides of small companies?
Dungeon Crawl Inc.: It's the most fun you can have without 3 midgets and a whip! Character stats made by your's truly!
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Still, what's the good and bad sides of small companies?
The good:
More focus, less interference from all sorts of people who want their say in how the product develops.
A better chance of innovative ideas, which scare big corporate producers.
A better chance of games that don't condescend to their players, or assume that all players are 12-years-old with the vocabulary of a chimpanzee and the problem-solving skills of a flower vase.
The bad:
Less money means lower production values. You like state-of-the-art games? Look elsewhere.
Less money means less publicity, and that means less chance you'll know about the games. Who's heard of King of Dragon Pass, one of the finest and most innovative RPGs to appear in the last five years?
Less money means looking for alternate methods of distribution that break the stranglehold a few store chains have on gaming--so that even if you know about the game, you may find it difficult to locate the thing.
The good:
More focus, less interference from all sorts of people who want their say in how the product develops.
A better chance of innovative ideas, which scare big corporate producers.
A better chance of games that don't condescend to their players, or assume that all players are 12-years-old with the vocabulary of a chimpanzee and the problem-solving skills of a flower vase.
The bad:
Less money means lower production values. You like state-of-the-art games? Look elsewhere.
Less money means less publicity, and that means less chance you'll know about the games. Who's heard of King of Dragon Pass, one of the finest and most innovative RPGs to appear in the last five years?
Less money means looking for alternate methods of distribution that break the stranglehold a few store chains have on gaming--so that even if you know about the game, you may find it difficult to locate the thing.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]Less money means less publicity, and that means less chance you'll know about the games. Who's heard of King of Dragon Pass, one of the finest and most innovative RPGs to appear in the last five years?[/QUOTE]
uh, anyone who's ever discussed favourite games with you...
but I think the last point is very pertinent. the nearby town has a fair number of good shops for games, but there is no way that any game that is not a huge release or very, very recent could be reliably found. I mean, even KOTOR is impossible to find. I think I've seen a copy in a record shop at full price, but that's it. with poor bandwidth and no credit card, I'm not going to see some of the best games out there.
but yes, big money buys lots of high-tricknology and polish, but it also means that there are a lot of people very worried about losing their money. so you get lots of people who believe they know what makes money.
no group of people making a shareware game in their spare time is going to worry about target demographics and genres or advertising campaigns because they don't need to make huge amounts of money back. they haven't spent stupid amounts of cash developing spectacular graphics engines or marketing campaigns. once you start investing huge amounts in a future game, you want someone to be able to say that it will definitely make money. none of the investors would necessarily give a flying toss what the game is like.
uh, anyone who's ever discussed favourite games with you...
but I think the last point is very pertinent. the nearby town has a fair number of good shops for games, but there is no way that any game that is not a huge release or very, very recent could be reliably found. I mean, even KOTOR is impossible to find. I think I've seen a copy in a record shop at full price, but that's it. with poor bandwidth and no credit card, I'm not going to see some of the best games out there.
but yes, big money buys lots of high-tricknology and polish, but it also means that there are a lot of people very worried about losing their money. so you get lots of people who believe they know what makes money.
no group of people making a shareware game in their spare time is going to worry about target demographics and genres or advertising campaigns because they don't need to make huge amounts of money back. they haven't spent stupid amounts of cash developing spectacular graphics engines or marketing campaigns. once you start investing huge amounts in a future game, you want someone to be able to say that it will definitely make money. none of the investors would necessarily give a flying toss what the game is like.
Here where the flattering and mendacious swarm
Of lying epitaths their secrets keep,
At last incapable of further harm
The lewd forefathers of the village sleep.
Of lying epitaths their secrets keep,
At last incapable of further harm
The lewd forefathers of the village sleep.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
but yes, big money buys lots of high-tricknology and polish, but it also means that there are a lot of people very worried about losing their money. so you get lots of people who believe they know what makes money.
If they had half a clue about games and some love for games development, it would be one thing; but the big corporate producers really don't care, at all. Mattel, for example, bought Microprose, promptly fired the in-house developers, and hired a number of untried minor development firms to put out products under the name brand--like Diplomacy, arguably the game with the worst AI that has ever been seen. About 18 months later, Mattel sold Microprose, again. True, the old company was in the doldrums and badly in need of energy at the helm, but Mattel was just interested in the bottomline. They acquired a name brand, and thought it would be sufficient to get people to buy whatever they wanted.
And how about EA? The game company killer, as it's called in some areas. I'm having trouble remembering every company they gutted, but Origin Systems, Westwood, and Berkeley Systems come to mind. And 3DO, which killed off New World Computing? Unfortunately, it takes a ton of money to produce something that looks great and can pay through the nose to distribution chains. This is why developers still sell their souls to the corporations...and why that won't change, anytime soon.
If they had half a clue about games and some love for games development, it would be one thing; but the big corporate producers really don't care, at all. Mattel, for example, bought Microprose, promptly fired the in-house developers, and hired a number of untried minor development firms to put out products under the name brand--like Diplomacy, arguably the game with the worst AI that has ever been seen. About 18 months later, Mattel sold Microprose, again. True, the old company was in the doldrums and badly in need of energy at the helm, but Mattel was just interested in the bottomline. They acquired a name brand, and thought it would be sufficient to get people to buy whatever they wanted.
And how about EA? The game company killer, as it's called in some areas. I'm having trouble remembering every company they gutted, but Origin Systems, Westwood, and Berkeley Systems come to mind. And 3DO, which killed off New World Computing? Unfortunately, it takes a ton of money to produce something that looks great and can pay through the nose to distribution chains. This is why developers still sell their souls to the corporations...and why that won't change, anytime soon.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]<snip>
And how about EA? The game company killer, as it's called in some areas. I'm having trouble remembering every company they gutted, but Origin Systems<snip>[/QUOTE]
I've never forgiven (nor will I likely for years to come) EA for butchering Origin
I stay away from some of their games just for that reason alone.
(I think the only EA games that aren't Origin which I have are the Medal of Honor games, well - possible I have more, but can't remember them at the moment)
EA Games is all about taking last years game and changing some things for better or worse and then lableing it with a new year-tag.... And then they have the gall to complain about sales.
I read on a danish newssite that EA fears the christmans sales, because they are projecting the same sales as last year whereas the industry was projecting 10% increase.
And how about EA? The game company killer, as it's called in some areas. I'm having trouble remembering every company they gutted, but Origin Systems<snip>[/QUOTE]
I've never forgiven (nor will I likely for years to come) EA for butchering Origin
I stay away from some of their games just for that reason alone.
(I think the only EA games that aren't Origin which I have are the Medal of Honor games, well - possible I have more, but can't remember them at the moment)
EA Games is all about taking last years game and changing some things for better or worse and then lableing it with a new year-tag.... And then they have the gall to complain about sales.
I read on a danish newssite that EA fears the christmans sales, because they are projecting the same sales as last year whereas the industry was projecting 10% increase.
Insert signature here.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
My point is simply that while corporations are enabling the development are ever more visually attractive games, with longer development times, they're also dictating a pattern where nobody tries anything new. All games must fit a pattern of established success. If anybody fails, it's the fault of the developer, who must be axed.
A KotoR could have been made 20 years ago, allowing for limitations of visuals and such. But a Hidden Agenda, Guns or Butter, or Darklands wouldn't be made today. So while there are advantages to everything, I tend to like innovation--and that's arguably on the wane.
A KotoR could have been made 20 years ago, allowing for limitations of visuals and such.
But a Hidden Agenda, Guns or Butter, or Darklands wouldn't be made today. So while there are advantages to everything, I tend to like innovation--and that's arguably on the wane.To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.